The CAP Inventory is a caretaker-report measure developed to estimate the risk of a parent physically abusing a child. The testconsists of 160 questions with a total of 10 standard scales and 2 special scales (added to the measure in 1990). The 10 standardscales include a 77-item Child Abuse Scale and 3 validity scales.

There have been multiple studies that have shown that a mother’s score on the CAP inventory is predictive of the child’s long-term intelligence, socioemotional outcome and development as well as future behavior by the parent.

Items were selected after an extensive literature search and with input from Child Protective Services. Item analysis was conducted to determine items with the greatest discriminative ability. Exploratory factor analyses and stepwise regression were used to predict abuse status. Cross-validation was used to replicate findings.

Construct Validity:

Validity Type

Not known

Not found

Nonclincal Samples

Clinical Samples

Diverse Samples

Convergent/Concurrent

Yes

Yes

Yes

Discriminant

Yes

Yes

Sensitive to Change

Yes

Intervention Effects

Yes

Longitudinal/Maturation Effects

Sensitive to Theoretically Distinct Groups

Factorial Validity

Yes

Yes

References for Construct Validity:

Miller, Handal, Gilner, & Cross (1991) found that Black adolescents aged 14-18 scored higher than the adult normative sample of the CAPI, suggesting that different cutoff scores need to be empirically established for adolescents. Adolescents' abuse history and history of witnessing violence were associated with higher abuse potential scores.

Criterion Validity:

Not Known

Not Found

Nonclinical Samples

Clinical Samples

Diverse Samples

Predictive Validity:

Yes

Yes

Yes

Postdictive Validity:

References for Criterion Validity:

See Chapter 5 in the Technical Manual.

Sensitivity Rate Score:

0.89

Specificity Rate Score:

0.96

Positive Predictive Power:

0.34

Overall Psychometric Limitations:

1. To avoid misclassification, cautious use of the CAPI is recommended in a situation where target base rates of physical abuse are very low.2. Fewer false positives occur when more conservative cutoffs are used.

Translation Quality

Language(s) Other Than English:

Language:

Translated

Back Translated

Reliable

Good Psychometrics

Similar Factor Structure

Norms Available

Measure Developed for this Group

1. Spanish

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

2. Filipino

Yes

3. Greek

Yes

Yes

Yes

4. Croatian

Yes

Yes

Yes

Population Information

Population Used For Measure Development:

Initial input was gathered from researchers and CPS workers, and an initial questionnaire was developed with 334 items. An initial study was conducted with a small (n=38), fairly homogeneous group of families involved with Child Protection services in North Carolina.

Based on the results from initial validity studies, the questions were trimmed to the current 160. Based on the findings from the original study, a second study was begun. It included 130 parents who were given the 160-question form. The sample included 65 abusing parents matched with 65 nonabusing parents from North Carolina and Oklahoma.

Measure has demonstrated evidence of reliability and validity in which populations?:

Pros & Cons/References

3. Has been studied and validated multiple times and is used frequently.

4. Spanish version well studied.

Cons:

1. According to the manual, care must be taken when utilizing this measure outside of the area of Child Protection.

2. This measure was designed as a tool to identify high-risk parents for physical abuse, and not other types of abuse.

3. It should be used only as one tool, and not as the sole predictor of abuse.

4. This measure is lengthy and takes considerable time to complete.

5. The items are face valid and many parents respond defensively. Although the validity scales help detect invalid response patterns, this still leaves the problem of having invalid responses.

References:

A PsychInfo literature search of the words "Child Abuse Potential Inventory” or “CAPI" (6/05) anywhere revealed that the measure has been referenced in 247 peer-reviewed journal articles. A sampling of these articles appears below.